When a colleague suffered similar bleeding after riding a roller coaster, Guthkelch suggested whiplash-type injuries were to blame. He published a paper in 1971, warning parents about the dangers of shaking their children.

In the years that followed, shaken baby syndrome became widely accepted in the medical community, diagnosed through a triad of symptoms: subdural bleeding (blood collecting between the brain and the skull), retinal bleeding (bleeding in the back of the eye) and brain swelling.

Courts recognized the syndrome, and the triad became proof of fatal abuse — "a medical diagnosis for murder," said Deborah Tuerkheimer, author of the new book, "Flawed Convictions: 'Shaken Baby Syndrome' and the Inertia of Injustice."

In 1987, public questions began to arise when biochemical engineers from Penn State University tested the hypothesis. They found shaking alone failed to cause the blood vessels in the brain to rupture. It was only when the head made impact that researchers observed bleeding in the brain.

Despite the findings, Shaken Baby Syndrome continued to be diagnosed and used to prosecute.

In 1995, prosecutors in Wisconsin charged caregiver Audrey Edmunds with murder, concluding she had shaken 7-month-old Natalie Beard to death — despite no witnesses and no outside evidence of trauma.

She told authorities the child was fussy and so she left her with a bottle. When she returned from helping other children, Edmunds found Natalie unresponsive.

At trial, medical experts for the prosecution told the jury that only shaking could explain the injuries, comparing them to a speeding car hitting the baby.

The jury convicted Edmunds, who insisted on her innocence but had no explanation for the injuries. The judge sentenced her to 18 years in prison.

In the years since, medical belief that the shaken baby syndrome's triad of symptoms provided ironclad proof of homicide has begun to crumble with several studies raising doubts.

Some biomechanical studies suggest shaking a baby to death would be impossible without also injuring the child's neck or spine.

In 2009, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended the diagnosis of the syndrome be discarded and replaced with "abusive head trauma."

That decision came a year after the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted Edmunds a new trial, with justices saying that a "significant dispute within the medical community as to the cause of those injuries ... constitutes newly discovered evidence."

After the ruling, prosecutors dismissed the charges against Edmunds, and the mother of three girls walked free from prison, reuniting with her now grown children after 11 years in prison.

"It never, ever got easier, and I never got used to it," she told Madison Magazine in Wisconsin. "But hope became my religion. Without hope, you're crushed."

As for Guthkelch, the pioneer of the shaken baby syndrome, he now has grave doubts about the way his theory is being used.

He told the Medill Justice Center that he now regrets writing his 1971 paper "because people are in jail on the basis of what they claim is my paper, when in fact it is nothing like it."

* * *

Last week, justices ordered a hearing in the case involving Christopher Brandon.

Pathologist Dr. Steven Hayne attributed the death in Brandon's case to Shaken Baby Syndrome, and he did the same with Jeffrey Havard, now on Death Row.

Hayne acknowledged to The Clarion-Ledger there is "growing evidence" such a diagnosis "is probably not correct."

Studies show shaking isn't able to generate enough force to cause these kinds of injuries to a child, he said.

At the same time, he said, studies are showing that the short falls of children can generate tremendous force when they hit a very hard surface.

In Havard's case, sexual assault was the underlying felony charge that enabled authorities to pursue the death penalty against him in the 2002 death of 6-month-old Chloe Britt, whom Havard said he accidentally dropped.

"I didn't think there was a sexual assault," Hayne told The Clarion-Ledger. "I didn't see any evidence of sexual assault."

Former state Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz Jr. said he believes the high court will order a hearing for Havard "given the strength of the new evidence, which I think is extremely strong."